4 ms·

The issue here isn’t AI, it’s not shovels and goldrushes, and it’s not about building how others are doing it. It’s fundamental value. It’s who is creating va

The issue here isn’t AI, it’s not shovels and goldrushes, and it’s not about building how others are doing it. It’s fundamental value. It’s who is creating value that cannot be destroyed. Who owns the house is determined by who builds the foundation first, and that means those that control the ecosystems. All others will play, survive, rent, and buy inside of those ecosystems. If you’re not building fundamental value, you are an intermediary, which may be huge companies, but ultimately companies built on others. If you don’t own the API and the customer, you’re a renter. And renters can get evicted. Those opportunities may still be worth chasing, but we shouldn’t get confused or over complicate what’s going on or we risk investing and building straw houses when brick was available. Nothing wrong with that. Respect to success. But let’s keep fundamental value in mind, as it’s the most important thing for first generation technology companies.

zemvpferreira 3y ago
I agree with you, but only to a point. In a healthy market renters can make landlords compete for their business. Plenty of healthy companies are built on other's infrastructure. But your point remains: Where will the linchpin be? Will AI be a commodity like the cloud, or a fundamental asset like search? And how quickly will we find out?
w10-1 3y ago
It’s fundamental value Yes! value that cannot be destroyed Or taken Who owns the house is determined by who builds the foundation first, and that means those that control the ecosystems Maybe. Most platform plays in tech fail or barely make ends meet, while their renters make bank and impact. we risk investing and building straw houses when brick was available There's no magic bias that solves the build-vs-buy question. More importantly, the article is encouraging people to stick with the structure of the problem and solution as you would normally for building products, and use AI at the edges rather than the engine. IMHO that's much controllable for developers than a full-on dependence on black-box LLM's, and it's even better for the AI providers: they're much more likely to help with a narrowly-defined solution. Even openai is emphasizing incrementalism. It fits available tech, and it counters bubble bias.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

zemvpferreira 3y ago

I agree with you, but only to a point. In a healthy market renters can make landlords compete for their business. Plenty of healthy companies are built on other's infrastructure. But your point remains: Where will the linchpin be? Will AI be a commodity like the cloud, or a fundamental asset like search? And how quickly will we find out?

w10-1 3y ago

It’s fundamental value Yes! value that cannot be destroyed Or taken Who owns the house is determined by who builds the foundation first, and that means those that control the ecosystems Maybe. Most platform plays in tech fail or barely make ends meet, while their renters make bank and impact. we risk investing and building straw houses when brick was available There's no magic bias that solves the build-vs-buy question. More importantly, the article is encouraging people to stick with the structure of the problem and solution as you would normally for building products, and use AI at the edges rather than the engine. IMHO that's much controllable for developers than a full-on dependence on black-box LLM's, and it's even better for the AI providers: they're much more likely to help with a narrowly-defined solution. Even openai is emphasizing incrementalism. It fits available tech, and it counters bubble bias.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]